Welcome to DevAuthority.Com Sign in | Join | Help

VistaDB

About a year ago, I was planning out an application to track all of the piddly little stupid stuff in my life - Frequent Flyer Numbers, Lock Combinations, Recipes, etc.  Ideally, I was hoping to put together something that would run on the Desktop, on my PocketPC and on the web so I could get to it from anywhere.  I started looking around for a database solution to do that sort of thing and ran across VistaDB.  I couldn't find enough information to decide if it was the right choice, and I didn't want to pay money to find out for sure.  Eventually after beating my head against the wall working with SQL Server CE, I settled for a desktop application to do the tracking.  Now, apparently, a new version VistaDB is out and in return for spreading the word, they're handing out free versions to bloggers.  I'm still interested in doing a fully-syncable app for this stuff, and it would be a good first project for VS 2005, so here's their announcement.  I'll give my free version a whirl and let you know what I think.

VistaDB 2.1 database for .NET has been released
This 2.1 update includes over 60 improvements, including new support for .NET 2.0 and Visual Studio .NET 2005. VistaDB is a small-footprint, embedded SQL database alternative to Jet/Access, MSDE and SQL Server Express 2005 that enables developers to build .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 applications. Features SQL-92 support, small 500KB embedded footprint, free 2-User VistaDB Server for remote TCP/IP data access, royalty free distribution for both embedded and server, Copy 'n Go! deployment, managed ADO.NET Provider, data management and data migration tools. Free trial is available for download.
- Learn more about VistaDB
- Repost this to your blog and receive a FREE copy of VistaDB 2.1!



Published Friday, November 04, 2005 7:06 AM by cslatt
Filed Under:

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

No Comments

What do you think?

(required) 
required 
(required)